K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ). The petitioner was an employee of the United Commercial Bank. The disciplinary authority after framing the charges against the petitioner, imposed punishment of withholding of two increments of pay for the years 1984 and 1985 with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated not on duty. The disciplinary authority also directed the payment of Rs. 6,630. 00 to be restored to the bank, if it was already not done. Mr. A. K. Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the said amount was restored to the bank before the charge-sheet was issued on the 21st of October, 1983. ( 2 ). The General Manager, as reviewing authority, exercising power under Regulation 18 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, issued a show-cause notice on the 13th of September, 1984 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not removed from the services of the bank which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. . On the 1st of October, 1984, the petitioner sent his reply. On the 17th of November, 1984, the General Manager, as reviewing authority, imposed the punishment of dismissal. Challenging the order of the General Manger (Reviewing Authority), the petitioner had filed this writ petition. On the 21st of October, 1989, the petitioner died. His widow had been brought on record in the place of petitioner. ( 3 ). Mr. A. K. Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the event of the petitioner succeeding, the widow of the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits for a period of 59 months. ( 4 ). Mr. A. K. Singla, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority had imposed a minor penalty having regard to the facts and circumstances. While exercising power under Regulation 18 the reviewing authority has no power to impose the punishment of removal. He can only enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which would come under the minor penalties enumerated. Therefore, the order passed by the General Manager is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and exercise of power contrary to Regulation 18. Mr. He can only enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which would come under the minor penalties enumerated. Therefore, the order passed by the General Manager is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and exercise of power contrary to Regulation 18. Mr. A. K. Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that apart from the want of jurisdiction, in view of the specific findings by the inquiry officer and also the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the reviewing authority, without giving any reasons, cannot enhance the punishment to that of dismissal. ( 5 ). The disciplinary authority had taken into account all the circumstances and had imposed the punishment which I mentioned above. The disciplinary authority stated, while passing the order of 11th of April, 1984,:- "mr. R. D. GUPTA was issued a Charge Sheet dated 21. 10. 83 for the following charges: Charge No. 1: Dishonestly and fraudulently making wrongful gain of Rs. 6,630. 00 by falsely and incorrectly making a credit voucher in his name as stated in the Statement of Allegations. Charge No. 2: Misappropriating the said amount of Rs. 6,630. 00 meant for Mr. Vakil Mahto. An enquiry was set up to inquire into the truth of imputations of allegations against him. Since then I have received Enquiry Officer s Report along with proceedings of Enquiry. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet, reply to the charge-sheet submitted by Mr. Gupta, enquiry proceedings and Enq. Officer s report. Enquiry Officer has stated that Charge No. 1 is not established but the Enquiry Officer has stated that Mr. Gupta was very much negligent and careless while depositing the cheque as the cheque pertaining to Mr. Vakil Mahto has been deposited by Mr. Gupta in his own account. Charge No. 2 could not be established by the Management at all. While I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as far as these findings are concerned, I find that Mr. Gupta was very much negligent and careless while depositing the cheque as the cheque pertaining to Mr. Mahto has been deposited by Mr. Gupta in his own account. According to the proceedings of the enquiry and Enquiry Officer s Report an Article of Charge different from the original Article of Charge which Mr. Gupta has admitted in his reply i. e. gross negligence on the part of Mr. Mahto has been deposited by Mr. Gupta in his own account. According to the proceedings of the enquiry and Enquiry Officer s Report an Article of Charge different from the original Article of Charge which Mr. Gupta has admitted in his reply i. e. gross negligence on the part of Mr. Gupta is proved. Taking a lenient view in the matter, I impose a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments of pay with cumulative effect of Mr. Gupta with the proviso that the period of suspension will not count for salary and allowance and the amount of Rs. 6,630. 00 , if not already restored, be restored to the Bank which will meet the ends of justice. Order Mr. R. D. Gupta s two increments of pay for the year 1984 and 1985 are withheld with cumulative effect. His period of suspension be not treated as on duty and the amount of Rs. 6,630. 00 be restored to Bank, if not already done. " ( 6 ). Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1976 mentions penalties to be imposed, which runs as under:- "penalties: The following are the penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. Minor Penalties: (a) Censure; (b) withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; (c) withholding of promotion: (d) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. Major Penalties: (e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (f) compulsory retirement; (g) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (h) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. " ( 7 ). Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1976 would prescribe the procedure for imposing major penalties. Regulation 8 of the Regulations, 1976 would provide for the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Under Regulation 8, it shall be open to the disciplinary authority, while considering the imposition of minor penalties, to follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in Regulation 6. ( 8 ). In the light of the language of the Regulations 4,6, 8 and 18, the submission of Mr. Under Regulation 8, it shall be open to the disciplinary authority, while considering the imposition of minor penalties, to follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in Regulation 6. ( 8 ). In the light of the language of the Regulations 4,6, 8 and 18, the submission of Mr. Singla that the General Manager has no power of review, cannot be accepted. ( 9 ). The third ground urged by Mr. A. K. Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the General Manager without giving any reasons, cannot differ from the view taken by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The General Manager, as reviewing authority, passed the order of removal on the 17th of November, 1984 which reads as under:- "in exercise of the power vested in me by virtue of Regulation 18 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I called for the records of the case of Shri R. D. Gupta. On consideration of the facts and records of the case, I came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority had viewed the misconduct/offence lightly while passing his orders on 11th April, 1994. The punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct/offence. Accordingly, in my capacity as the Reviewing Authority, I had, vide my letter dated 13th September, 1984 called upon Shri R. D. Gupta to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of the said letter as to why the punishment under Regulation 4 (g) of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 i. e. his removal from the Bank s service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, cannot be imposed on him. I have received his reply dated 1st October, 1984 to the aforesaid letter and do not find any extenuating circumstances or fresh points to reconsider the punishment proposed by me in my letter dated 13th September, 1984. In the above premises, I pass the following order under Regulation 4 (g) of the aforesaid Regulations against him - "shri R. D. GUPTA IS REMOVED FROM THE BANK s SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHICH SHALL NOT BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. " ( 10 ). In the above premises, I pass the following order under Regulation 4 (g) of the aforesaid Regulations against him - "shri R. D. GUPTA IS REMOVED FROM THE BANK s SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHICH SHALL NOT BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. " ( 10 ). The General Manager has not given any reasons as to how the view taken by the inquiry officer and the view of the disciplinary authority are not correct or not in accordance with law. The order passed by the General Manager (Reviewing Autority) suffers from a very serious infirmity and it is against the basic principles of natural justice. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order dated the 17th of November, 1984 passed by the General Manager (Reviewing Authority) cannot be sustained and, accordingly, it is set aside. The punishment imposed on the 11th of April, 1984 by the disciplinary authority shall be maintained and on that basis the widow of the petitioner shall be paid the monetary benefits for the period of 59 months. ( 11 ). The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. ( 12 ). There shall be no orders as to costs.